DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hassan et al (US 20180295479 A1; hereinafter “Hassan”).
Regarding claim 1, Hassan discloses a call establishment method (see Hassan, fig. 2a), comprising: sending, by a first terminal, a notification message to an ith second terminal in N second terminals in a case that a target call fails to be established, wherein the notification message is used to indicate the second terminal to establish the target call, N and i are both positive integers, and N is greater than or equal to i (see Hassan, fig. 2a); receiving, by the first terminal, a target message sent by the ith second terminal; and sending, by the first terminal, the notification message to an (i+1) th second terminal in the N second terminals in a case that the target message indicates that the ith second terminal fails to establish the target call and i is less than N (see Hassan, fig. 2a), wherein a distance between each of the N second terminals and the first terminal is less than or equal to a preset distance (see Hassan, ¶0056, The initiating device 101 may estimate the physical distance between itself and the proxy device 102 by measuring the strength of the reply signal. Since the reply signal weakens with increasing distance between the two devices, the initiating device 101 may define a minimum signal strength (“threshold strength”) as an indicator of proximity.).
Regarding claims 8, 13 and 20, the limitations have been addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the method according to claim 1, wherein the target call is an emergency call; and the notification message comprises: location information of the first terminal and call type information, wherein the call type information indicates that the target call is an emergency call (see Hassan, ¶0047).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, the limitations have been met by the cited sections of the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the method according to claim 1, wherein the sending, by the first terminal, the notification message to an (i+1) th second terminal in the N second terminals comprises: determining, by the first terminal, the (i+1) th second terminal from the N second terminals based on a preset order, and sending the notification message to the (i+1) th second terminal (see Hassan, ¶0056 discloses a preset order based on signal strength).
Regarding claims 10 and 15, the limitations have been met by the cited sections of the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the method according to claim 1, wherein the target message indicates that the ith second terminal successfully establishes the target call; and after the receiving, by the first terminal, the target message sent by the it second terminal, the method further comprises: answering, by the first terminal, the target call through short-range communication between the first terminal and the ith second terminal (see Hassan, fig. 2a and ¶0042 initiating device joins call carried by the proxy device via Bluetooth or Wifi) .
Regarding claims 12 and 17, the limitations have been met by the cited sections of the rejection of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6, 7, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hassan in view of Leppanen et al (US 20130143535 A1; hereinafter “Leppanen”).
Regarding claim 6, the method according to claim 1, wherein the target message indicates that the ith second terminal successfully establishes the target call; and after the receiving, by the first terminal, the target message sent by the it second terminal (see Hassan, fig. 2a, ¶0042, 56)
Hassan fails to disclose displaying, by the first terminal, a first selection identifier and a second selection identifier, wherein the first selection identifier is used to select the first terminal as an answering end of the target call, and the second selection identifier is used to select the ith second terminal as an answering end of the target call.
In the same field of endeavor, Leppanen discloses displaying, by the first terminal, a first selection identifier and a second selection identifier, wherein the first selection identifier is used to select the first terminal as an answering end of the target call, and the second selection identifier is used to select the ith second terminal as an answering end of the target call (see Leppanen, fig. 4a, 4b).
Hassan discusses sharing a call with a nearby device and Leppanen also discusses shared calling, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hassan by including the user display information of Leppanen, thereby providing a clearer communication.
Regarding claim 7, the method according to claim 1, Hassan fails to specifically disclose wherein the method further comprises: displaying, by the first terminal, target information, wherein the target information is used to indicate a terminal that currently establishes the target call.
In the same field of endeavor, Leppanen discloses wherein the method further comprises: displaying, by the first terminal, target information, wherein the target information is used to indicate a terminal that currently establishes the target call (see Leppanen, fig. 4a, 4b).
See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the limitations have been met by the cited sections of the rejection of claim 6 and 7 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Hassan and Leppanen, solely and in combination fail to disclose sending, by the first terminal, a first message to the N second terminals, wherein the first message is used to indicate the N second terminals to feed back network quality of networks accessed by the N second terminals; receiving, by the first terminal, feedback messages of the N second terminals, wherein each feedback message comprises network quality information of a network accessed by a corresponding second terminal; and determining, by the first terminal, the preset order according to the feedback messages of the N second terminals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5144. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571) 272-8004. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights